|
_WW4__ - -
<br />Minutes of Wm?yf, 64
<br />-2-
<br />,a ' he first plan was an amended plat requesting rezoning for that area zoned 80 foot modified
<br />0 70 foot zoning and showing relocation of the recreational area and access drive to
<br />Chestnut School for approval *.by the Commission.-.This plan showed 80 foot sublots in the
<br />80 foot area and 70 foot sublots in the 70 foot zoned area. Discussion ensued relative to
<br />this first proposal between Mr. Bis.kind, the CoMmission and the Law Director and it.was
<br />moved by Mr. Vincent, seconded by Mr. Prokasy, to reject this proposal as submitted. YEAS
<br />Vincent, Prokasy, LaPonza, Macs, Foltz, Ford,
<br />Proposal No. 2 showed ttie 5 acre recreational area moved to the Northerly end of the sub-
<br />division with another recreational area in the Southerly subdivision of 2.2 acres, a connect-
<br />ing street between the 2 subdivisions across Interstate 80, and showing the Olmsted Township
<br />line and 70 foot sublots, requesting rezoning from 80 foot to 70 foot sublots. Subdivision
<br />A. in this plan included 365 sublots and Subdivision B in the plan included 162 sublots or a
<br />total of 527 sublots altogether. As pripsently zoned. Subdfivision A would have 239 sublots
<br />and subdivisioTi B would have 117 sublots or a'total of 356 pighty foot sublots to be reduced
<br />to 70 foot lots. Subdivision A would include 273 sublots with 70 foot frontage and Subdivi-
<br />sion B would include 129 sublots with 70 foot frontage or a total of 402 lots with 70 foot
<br />frontage, total 'difference gained of 46 sublotsrnr 13.4 acres. This plan showed 7.2 acres
<br />of land for recreational purposes within the development. After consideration it was moved
<br />by Mr. LaPonza, seconded by Mr. Ford, that Subdivision No, 1, this proposal No. 2, dated
<br />May 7, 1964, showing 92 sublots, con€orming to the present zoning, including 1-90 foot
<br />lot,?-24-80 foot lots, and 55-70 foot lots be recommended to Council for rezoning. Those
<br />sublots shown as 80 foot lots included 2 through 8 inclusive and 76 througti 92 inclusive.
<br />YEAS LaPonza, Ford, Macs, Foltz, Vincent, Prokasy,
<br />S was moved by Mr. Vincent, seconded by Mr. LaPonza, to rezone the balance of the subdivi-
<br />on as presented, this being preliminary plat x, dated May 7, 1964, and to recommend this
<br />to Council. YEAS Vincent, LaPonza, Ford, Foltz, Macs, Prokasy,
<br />REZONING LUCEYDALE ANI) LORAIN
<br />Mr. Tony Thomas, owner of property located on the corner of Luceydale and Lorain Roads,
<br />came before the Commissi.on requesting rezoning of th&:,property adjacent to the stores on
<br />the corner of Luceydale and Lorain to be used for parking. Discussion ensued relative to
<br />this proposal and it was moved by Mr. Prokasy, seconded by Mr. Vilncent, to approve this
<br />proposal for rezoning, including a deed restriction to last for 20 years that this j.s the
<br />only-acceptable use for this land. YEAS Prokasy, Vincent, LaPonza, Macs, Ford, Foltz.
<br />JOSEPH BAUER - BUTTERNUT HEIGHTS SUBDIVI9+ION
<br />Mr, Kanareff presented plans for a subdivision of 36 sublots known as Butternut Heights
<br />Subdivision for approval by the Commission. He also presented another proposed subdivision
<br />for this same area showing 20 sublots and provision for Interstate 80, It was moved by Mr,
<br />LaPonza, seconded by Mr. Foltz, to put this into committee for further study. YEAS Foltz,
<br />LaPonza, Ford, Prokasy, Vincent, Macs.
<br />BEVERLY HILLS SUBDIVISION N0, 2- Proposed Resubdivision
<br />0 . Bauer presented a plot showing sublots A, B, 93A, 94A, 89, 90, 9?, and 92 £or approval
<br />the Commission. It was moved by Mr,LaPonza, seconded by Mr. Ford, to put this into
<br />mmittee for further study. YEAS LaPonza, Ford, Macs, Foltz, Prokasy, Vincent,
|